Mexican Airforce films UFOs

[Capt.Franz]

Re: So much for so little

I have been trying to verify the oil flare hypothesis for several months now,
and I have finally obtained the answers for many of the issues we were merely
just speculating about, especially concerning the camera elevation problems,
and the distance problems.

Franz,

I like the fact that you actually collected information about the Cantarell
oilfield, this proved to be a good hint for Smith who knows a great deal
about satellites ( I think I have spammed 15 satellites with no result).
I will not give you any credits for anything since you don’t seem to
like it, but I do have a question though:

What’s up with all that banter about ETs?

The Drake equation, Fermi’s paradox and the continuing failure of the SETI
project should be something worth adding to that equation shouldn’t it?

I do believe there’s something out there, because since the universe is
infinite it’s somewhat impossible that there isn’t. However, that extra
terrestrial life forms should be (secretly) present here on Earth is not
most likely with the current knowledge of several issues. That’s at least
my personal opinion. Anyway, I saw you asked on the Virtuallystrange
mailing list if anyone had the original uncut DVD. I can answer that for you:
If there actually is an original uncut video, SEDENA has it, but the video
you have obtained from my site and cut into several pieces is encoded from
the exact same DVD Maussan and Maccabee has. Maussan sent me that DVD,
and I encoded it for all to see with his permission. In this concern
I would like point out that he knew I was a skeptic when he sent me that DVD.


Much of the information on your site is excellent. Outstanding efforts indeed,
but please don’t use any of my diagrams or anything else. I do not wish to get
entangled in those struggles which are ongoing in the UFO researcher societies
I hope you can understand my wish in this concern..

I studied this case because it was relevant to my interest in philosophy
of science. Thanks for your efforts.

Hello Thomas,

First of all I want to congratulate you for your excellent work
your skills and knowledge. I wish I could have half of that.

I hope this could help in some way:

The most important geomagnetic fact to remember, the earth’s magnetic field
is neither uniform, stationary, nor perfectly aligned with the planet’s poles.
True north can be determined with a compass reading plus/minus (as appropriate)
the location’s magnetic deviation. Magnetic deviation (also called magnetic
declination, magnetic variation, or compass variation) is the angle between
the north compass (magnetic) heading and the heading to true (geographic) north.

The VARIATION in Campeche's oil rigs area is 4 degrees EAST so maybe that could
help to have a more accurate result. I have a directory with NAVIGATION
CHARTS of 1:1,000,000 scale and maybe you would like to use some of them.

See:

http://www.alcione.org/FRAUDES/FAM/CHARTS/

Examples:

variation 4 DEGREES east
http://www.alcione.org/FRAUDES/FAM/CHARTS/DSC01410.JPG

http://www.alcione.org/FRAUDES/FAM/CHARTS/carmen_chart5.JPG

Here it shows VARIATION exactly where the oil wells are located:
http://www.alcione.org/FRAUDES/FAM/CHARTS/Copy of DSC01411.JPG


Regards,

Alex

 

[Thomas]

Re: Re: So much for so little

Hello Thomas,

First of all I want to congratulate you for your excellent work
your skills and knowledge. I wish I could have half of that.

Thanks for those kind words, I appreciate it very much. However, if we could trade knowledge and skills for a day, I'm sure you would be quite disappointed when I took off in a Boeing and you had to stay on the ground with a pile of theories

I hope this could help in some way:

The most important geomagnetic fact to remember, the earth’s magnetic field
is neither uniform, stationary, nor perfectly aligned with the planet’s poles.
True north can be determined with a compass reading plus/minus (as appropriate)
the location’s magnetic deviation. Magnetic deviation (also called magnetic
declination, magnetic variation, or compass variation) is the angle between
the north compass (magnetic) heading and the heading to true (geographic) north.

The VARIATION in Campeche's oil rigs area is 4 degrees EAST so maybe that could
help to have a more accurate result. I have a directory with NAVIGATION
CHARTS of 1:1,000,000 scale and maybe you would like to use some of them.

See:

http://www.alcione.org/FRAUDES/FAM/CHARTS/

Examples:

variation 4 DEGREES east
http://www.alcione.org/FRAUDES/FAM/CHARTS/DSC01410.JPG

http://www.alcione.org/FRAUDES/FAM/CHARTS/carmen_chart5.JPG

Here it shows VARIATION exactly where the oil wells are located:
http://www.alcione.org/FRAUDES/FAM/CHARTS/Copy of DSC01411.JPG

That sounds extremely interesting, and I will look into it as soon as I can, but I'm very, very busy these days. Thank you for posting this, I think it can be essential and maybe provide the final proof for the actual observation angles. Excellent.

Maybe I should add, that If the SAFIRE is mounted correctly it will be accurate to better than 2.5 milliradians, so that's pretty precise. Maybe the final adjustments to the maps are to be done with magnetic deviation - as you propose.
Well, we'll find out. Thanks for posting this, it's quite interesting indeed.

 

[Thomas]

Re: Re: Re: Re: So much for so little

Ah, I found today he lists where he got the images

Beautiful, so it was Landsat 7 (this bird is able to obtain images in the infrared spectrum).
However, as I told Alex, I have no time for at least the next couple of days - although I would love to be the one to find the patterns to match the last radiation sources

I wasn't aware that Smith had made such a thorough report.

 

[Capt.Franz]

Re: Re: Re: So much for so little

Thanks for posting this, it's quite interesting indeed.

I wish I could do more.

By the way, I posted many months ago to Tim Wescott
and I didn't have a response from him. Can you let me use
the data you provided about the SAFIRE II- two modes,
the hybrid and the ”HDHLD” mode. It is very important
to let the people know how this FLIR system maybe was used
incorrectly. Can I use that info without mentioning you?

I couldn't find any info in the whole www.

Regards,

Alex

 

[wipeout]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So much for so little

It is very difficult to promote my work but worst is to make
people to visit the related pages, read carefully the data and
then emit their thoughts. No way, they are UFO's!

It's kind of wierd humans are frantic when turn on their TV's
and take for real what in a UFO tricky show is presented.

The truth is out there... but they can't handle the truth.

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated
the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable,
must be the truth?" -Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of the Four -

That's funny because I thought about that quote just a day or two ago.

Please all call me Alex...ok?

Thank you Wipeout, I was shocked at first now I am calm.

You -- or anyone else -- can call me Richard or Richey if you want.

"Wipeout" is the act of falling off something (like a surfboard) or crashing into something. It's also a futuristic racing videogame series that I like.

I don't know how stupid they are, what really makes me think is how far this people are willing to go and why?

I can only hope they go too far for their own good.

 

[wipeout]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So much for so little

Beautiful, so it was Landsat 7 (this bird is able to obtain images in the infrared spectrum).
However, as I told Alex, I have no time for at least the next couple of days - although I would love to be the one to find the patterns to match the last radiation sources

I'll leave it up to you to match them up then.

I've had a brief look at some of the satellite pictures. Winrar and then Paint Shop Pro and no problems.

So far, I've only looked at the first group of pictures ("2001-01-16").

Very interesting. There's a group of similar platforms to the west but they are right on the edge of the picture and there's a real possibility that some are off this set of pictures. Need to look at all the pictures to know for sure.

I wasn't aware that Smith had made such a thorough report.

I found it when I did a Google search on him a couple of months ago, then found it again a couple of days ago from another Google search when seeing who was saying what about oil flares.

By the way, I made a mistake when I said I thought "the twins" had disappeared as we see them again a couple of times just before the picture zooms to the main "s" formation.

It's that the picture is so zoomed in that misses them, although distant cloud-cover may well still be involved in any group of flares appearing and disappearing suddenly during the footage.

 

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Capt.Franz
It is very difficult to promote my work but worst is to make
people to visit the related pages, read carefully the data and
then emit their thoughts. No way, they are UFO's!

It's kind of wierd humans are frantic when turn on their TV's
and take for real what in a UFO tricky show is presented.


Like I said keep in mind the ufoers for YEARS have wanted a government to come forward. Dont forget they think government is covering up ufo's. So now one has come forward and said they saw one and didnt cover it up....they are not, I repeat not going to let it go

But, the truth is the truth. When I read this thread I may not know exactly what everyone is talking about but the main point about the flares and how it all relates to an explaination comes through. Im trusting those here as a good source and the explanation seems logical.

But perhaps whats needed( if you havent already) is an explaination in a "nutshell" "layman terms" for those like myself that do not understand the "science" completely. Then if they want further explanation then they could dive deeper into the rest of the info.

So if was related in a easy to understand way, perhaps a telling of what happened and because it was a understandable mistake on the pilots part so there is no offence.

Perhaps you could find a netural party to present your evidence. I really think this is a defining case with the governement coming forward and all. They wont relent easily as its what they have wanted to happen since Roswell.

My sincere best wishes.

 

[wipeout]

Kitty Chan,

I agree with you that we need a brief but thorough summary of the case for people who are interested but don't want all the technical details.

I had actually been thinking about putting together all the information we know here in a straightforward way.

I would create a single big picture made up of smaller pictures, diagrams and maps with boxes with written explanations of the case.

I might give it a try and we will see if it is any good or not.

 

[Thomas]

Re: Re: Re: Re: So much for so little

Can I use that info without mentioning you?

Yes you can, but then I'll request that you make sure to add; that this information has been provided by Tim Wescott, and that his opinion may not necessarily be the same as that of FLIR Systems.

 

[Thomas]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So much for so little

I'll leave it up to you to match them up then.

Dont hesitate due to me, because the thing is:

1) I'm flooded with deadlines right now.

2) I'm not in Copenhagen right now, and the bandwidth here is a travesty. I don't know exactly when I'll be back again, either.

I've had a brief look at some of the satellite pictures. Winrar and then Paint Shop Pro and no problems.

I have to recommend Geomatica Freeview, I used this to plot out the stable lights (as you can see in most of my diagrams on page 16). The .tiff for these lights are 667 mb in size, so I made a screendumb from Geomatica and modified the gradients and aspect ratios in photoshop - for illustrative purposes.
There is a lot of nice options in Geomatica (if the maps are correct).

You gave me the chills when I saw you recommended Paint Shop Pro, I'm a Photoshop'per! ..It's like recommending Microsoft Word to someone using Paint Shop Pro ..But enough of that, if it works, it works.

 

[Thomas]

But perhaps whats needed( if you havent already) is an explaination in a "nutshell" "layman terms" for those like myself that do not understand the "science" completely.

The thing is that we're not really sure what many of the heat/radiation sources are at this point. We can - more or less - safely assume that many of them is grounded, but that's it.

For example, the very first object which triggered the camera operators curiosity, is still unknown in origin.
Many of the unknowns could easily be infrared radiation from the Sun, reflecting on clouds, lakes, metal and so forth, but nobody knows. Could you imagine what would happen if we made an "explanation in a nutshell" where we had to state that we don't know the origin of atleast half of the heat sources?

Anyway, as you know, those heat sources which was presented by the medias worldwide as being "mysterious/unexplainable", is - most likely - oil flares, so that's atleast another victory for skepticism

 

[Kitty Chan]

Thomas thanks and I understand completely, I did not know that part.

Thanks again, I guess I can be the "test" audience but does it work if Im biased

 

[Thomas]

Thanks again, I guess I can be the "test" audience but does it work if Im biased

You're more than welcome.. and.. bias seems to work just fine for the believers, so why shouldn't it work for us?

 

[Capt.Franz]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So much for so little

Yes you can, but then I'll request that you make sure to add; that this information has been provided by Tim Wescott, and that his opinion may not necessarily be the same as that of FLIR Systems.

Thank you Thomas, I will surely respect your request.

Alex

 

[Capt.Franz]

Like I said keep in mind the ufoers for YEARS have wanted a government to come forward. Dont forget they think government is covering up ufo's. So now one has come forward and said they saw one and didnt cover it up....they are not, I repeat not going to let it go

Hello Kitty Chan ,

I am sorry I didn't answer until today. I was very busy doing some
transcript and translation of the Mexican Air Force FLIR video.

Now it is available at: http://www.alcione.org/CAMPECHE/

So if was related in a easy to understand way, perhaps
a telling of what happened and because it was a understandable
mistake on the pilots part so there is no offence.

It is going to be very difficult they accept an error while there was an error to make it public
to the media and worst to a very well known charlatan as Jaime Maussan.

Perhaps you could find a netural party to present your evidence. I really think this is a defining case with the governement coming forward and all. They wont relent easily as its what they have wanted to happen since Roswell.

My sincere best wishes.

Thank you,

I know it will be very difficult but know I have some people behind
me I can't tell who they are by now but many of them are scientist
from Mexico and other countries who are supporting my theory and
at the right time will provide a great deal of information.

I have another extremely good news I can't tell by now.
It has to do with a prestigious world wide TV program
that will recreate the Mexican Air Force flight like
the sighting of march 05, 2004 in the same location.
I will participate on board the airplane and I hope
the weather will be good to get a similar scenario.

I will tell here when it is done.

Best regards,

Alex

P.D. I apologize to other members who I have not answered yet,
I have a lot of work ahead. TK's

 

[Lucianarchy]

Could you imagine what would happen if we made an "explanation in a nutshell" where we had to state that we don't know the origin of atleast half of the heat sources?

Yes. You would be telling the truth. Why is that such a difficult thing to admit to?

Instead, you have to fall back on supposition and technical mumbo-jumbo and appeal to authority. The only people buying that are other skeptics, so if your plan is to debunk the sightings in the interests of the general public, you have failed.

 

[Thomas]

Yes. You would be telling the truth. Why is that such a difficult thing to admit to?

I just did exactly that in the very post you quote from.

The point is that any conclusions concerning these radiation sources is premature, but; that it is most likely quite mundane reflections of infrared radiation from the Sun (on clouds, lakes, metal plates etc.). In the beginning of the video you can see these kind of reflections which is clearly coming from lakes and clouds.

Instead, you have to fall back on supposition and technical mumbo-jumbo and appeal to authority. The only people buying that are other skeptics, so if your plan is to debunk the sightings in the interests of the general public, you have failed.

It's not an appeal to authority to ask a chief engineer behind the SAFIRE II how his camera works in detail, it's just gathering facts.
These are the facts you call "technical mumbo-jumbo", but that is, however, what you need to know if you want to understand how the SAFIRE II works.

 

[wipeout]

I was very busy doing some
transcript and translation of the Mexican Air Force FLIR video.

Now it is available at: http://www.alcione.org/CAMPECHE/

I learned a couple of things from your translation, namely, they were low on fuel and that the radar was behaving a bit strangely.

I had wondered why they didn't follow the first object --which is probably just a plane, particularly since it travels between two places with runways.

I had also suggested that the radar was having problems once we realized that oil-flares fitted the mystery.

I didn't know that they had actual radar objects in the direction of the oil-flares but that these objects were not giving proper readings, though. I'll make a guess and say they would be unrelated and perhaps just coincidental readings of ground objects at Ciudad del Carmen.

I know it will be very difficult but know I have some people behind me I can't tell who they are by now but many of them are scientist from Mexico and other countries who are supporting my theory and at the right time will provide a great deal of information.

Ah good, I was hoping people like that would help out and support you.

I have another extremely good news I can't tell by now. It has to do with a prestigious world wide TV program that will recreate the Mexican Air Force flight like the sighting of march 05, 2004 in the same location. I will participate on board the airplane and I hope the weather will be good to get a similar scenario.

That's great news! Good luck with this.

 

[Thomas]

I had also suggested that the radar was having problems once we realized that oil-flares fitted the mystery.

Sadly, all which remains here, is speculations. Anyway, here is the radar diagrams I made for my initial report.
<center>

</center>

I'll make a guess and say they would be unrelated and perhaps just coincidental readings of ground objects at Ciudad del Carmen.

Good guess, because I stated in this very thread several months ago that they seemed to be unrelated
There is a mismatch of the angles, as I said back then.

A triangualtion places the first FLIR object (the dancer) here:

<center>

</center>

I wouldn't personally trust that map all together, there are too many unknown variables - which is impossible to account for - when you try to measure the precise bearing of the airplane.

Ah good, I was hoping people like that would help out and support you.

If I didn't know you by now, I would take that statement as an insult against James Smith, Laurent Leger and myself

 

[wipeout]

Sadly, all which remains here, is speculations. Anyway, here is the radar diagrams I made for my initial report.

I'm sorry, I didn't make it clear what I meant. Nice diagrams, by the way.

I was referring to my original speculation that any strange radar readings could be explained if the radar was simply going wrong in some way.

That was before I knew there were no radar readings for main group of objects.

What is new to me is that this is wrong -- there were radar readings after all in the direction of the oil-platforms, just very ambiguous ones, so Captain Franz's translation shows there were more early radar objects than just the first object:

http://www.alcione.org/CAMPECHE/Pozos6.html

It refers to "little spots" at 17:05:03 but "no speed or anything". I believe the oil-platforms are well out of radar range -- judged from what seems to be the the first object going off radar at about 35 miles -- so that's why I'm suggesting that it's perhaps something on the ground in (or around) the city of Ciudad del Carmen they are picking up.

This possibly explains the mysterious later comment at around 17:07:40 that the radar operator was seeing something but it's gone now. I'd always wondered if that was about the first object or not and it turns out that it's probably from the start of the time that they were spotting the main group.

http://www.alcione.org/CAMPECHE/Pozos7.html

Good guess, because I stated in this very thread several months ago that they seemed to be unrelated
There is a mismatch of the angles, as I said back then.

Like I said when I saw the full footage, I'm not even convinced the first radar object is ever seen on FLIR.

We see something... but it's not like a city with a related oil-industry and an oil-field is an area lacking hot spots.

If I didn't know you by now, I would take that statement as an insult against James Smith, Laurent Leger and myself

I assumed Alex meant UFO skeptics and scientists who got involved after seeing the oil-flare theory being attacked by Maussan on TV in the last couple of weeks and might be able to help counter the attack through their TV and other media contacts.

I don't see why Alex might say he "can't tell who they are by now" if he means you're or James Smith as you both on a couple of public internet boards talking about the issue for some time.

Same as he "can't tell by now" of the details of the TV programme, I assume he means people we don't know about yet.